Wiggo's form

No_Ta_Doctor

This thread is ridiculous on so many levels.

Is this the first year where a good performance in the Dauphine is being taken as a possible sign of dodgy methods, rather than the reverse?

As for comparing pictures of a cyclist to try and assess weight loss, it's one of the most laughable methods I can imagine. Given the variation in cyclist position, kit, lighting, exposure, aperture, colour balance, saturation, contrast etc. it's just stupid. That's without even starting on any selection bias in picking the shots.

Lastly, the Sky training tactics of racing fewer races but racing them seriously is different enough to the training of most other teams to explain the differences between them. Aside from any potential improvements in form the technique might give, if everyone else is riding the Dauphine to train for the TdF and Wiggins/Sky is riding to win it then why on earth would there be any surprise at all that the whole team were performing well?

There's enough doping in the sport still without needing to invent it on the thinnest signs possible.

nweststeyn

Some people just hate the idea of the sport becoming popular and therefore ensuring it will no longer be a 'cool' and 'niche' sport to follow. They would rather look for negatives in the hope that another scandal will blow up and ruin it's popularity.

nweststeyn

P.S. Theres a guy in a red and white t-shirt riding on the front of the Peloton at the moment. The yellow jumper and all of the other riders are totally unable to overtake him!!! I think he must be drugged off his face and is probably riding on a drugs bike with a motor made of drugs, in the hope of getting to the finish first (which is where the drugs are).

nweststeyn

I have also noticed that Europcar are still riding Colnago, despite the doping scandal.

Surely THIS is proof enough?!?!

calvjones

If Wiggo wins the Tour after this 'training all year no peaks' stuff it may just show that other teams are habitually stuck in the peak-trough mode dictated by blood doping, without actually blood doping (much).

This is my optimistic reading.

TimSE

Well, now he's won the Duaphine it is clearly my opportunity to give you my considered opinion. As one who's objectivity and intelligence are clearly so far superior to the rest of you here please see the following rreasons as to why Wiggo and Sky are all rubbish.

1. Wiggo's clearly on drugs.
2. The competition wasn't trying.
3. The race wasn't hard enough.
4. You are all too keen for a British win (if he is British!!!!) to see the obvious problems.
5. Something else spurious and unproven.
6. How can he lose all that weight and still keep such a ridiculous hair cut?
7. He's too thin.
8. I can't be arsed doing any more of this.

Oh, and Cav's shit as well.
And I don't fancy Victoria Pendleton.

Come on everybody else who is European and clearly has sufficient history to merit winning races.

nweststeyn

I like the cut of your jib, Tim...

P_Tucker

RichN95 wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

thamacdaddy wrote:

Does anyone apart from bernie seriously think sky are on a team doping programme?

Yes. One rider having a spectacular run of form is (given cycling's history) a teeny bit suspicious; half a team destroying the bunch in the Tour warm-up is quite frankly unbelievable.

Then why are you not pointing the finger at Weening and Kiryenka? How did they hang in there without much trouble? Or Quintana who seemed to gain 40 seconds without ever looking on the rivet?

Porte, Wiggins, Rogers and Froome have all been in the top seven in a Grand Tour in the last three years, three of them while at different teams. You would expect them to be at the front end of a climb. But Weening and Kiryenka have never been in the top 20 of a GT. Why are they less suspicious just because they have a different jersey on?

Or maybe it wasn't that remarkable a performance and half the decent climbers had been in the early break and the other half weren't trying/off-form. I suppose you find it unbelievable when Sky destroy the field at the British nationals too.

Er, because the question to which I was responding regarded TEAM doping. Quite simple really. One team dominating an important race given what we now all know about Gewiss, Mapei and US Postal is pretty damning. But hey, this time its different, right?

RichN95.

P_Tucker wrote:

Er, because the question to which I was responding regarded TEAM doping. Quite simple really. One team dominating an important race given what we now all know about Gewiss, Mapei and US Postal is pretty damning. But hey, this time its different, right?

If Rogers and Froome (neither of who did a turn at the front) had been different jerseys on, would you be suspicious? Is it that incredible that they can climb at the same rate as Kiryenka?

Gewiss, Mapei and Postal were doing it at the Tour and Monuments and left nobody in their wake. Sky are doing it in a training race and still have GT domestiques in their wake. Can't you see a distinction?

Sky are a big team with lots of money and have bought up a whole host of climbing diesel engines. Rogers, Porte, Sivitsov, EBH and Wiggins aren't really doing anything that they haven't done at different teams before. It's just this time they're not alone.

Two months ago at the classics Quick Step was the superteam who were supposedly on some doping program and Sky were a big joke. Since QS have disappeared and Sky have done well. Apparently it is a surprise to some that a team full of cobbles specialists is good at cobbles and a team full of time-trialing stage racers is good at stage races with time-trials.

Gazzetta67

nweststeyn wrote:

I have also noticed that Europcar are still riding Colnago, despite the doping scandal.

Surely THIS is proof enough?!?!

Was out for 3 hours on my Colnago this morning...felt sh*****d the whole run....tho my cough stopped maybe i took the Calpol jar by mistake 8)

Gazzetta67

TimSE wrote:

Well, now he's won the Duaphine it is clearly my opportunity to give you my considered opinion. As one who's objectivity and intelligence are clearly so far superior to the rest of you here please see the following rreasons as to why Wiggo and Sky are all rubbish.

1. Wiggo's clearly on drugs.
2. The competition wasn't trying.
3. The race wasn't hard enough.
4. You are all too keen for a British win (if he is British!!!!) to see the obvious problems.
5. Something else spurious and unproven.
6. How can he lose all that weight and still keep such a ridiculous hair cut?
7. He's too thin.
8. I can't be arsed doing any more of this.

Oh, and Cav's shoot as well.
And I don't fancy Victoria Pendleton.

Come on everybody else who is European and clearly has sufficient history to merit winning races.

You missed his ridiculous Black shin length socks too.

frenchfighter

RichN95 wrote:

Is it that incredible that they can climb at the same rate as Kiryenka?

Kiri is Very handy when the road goes uphill actually.




Of course Sky arent doping. Had Alberto and Samu been there they would have attacked, gapped and done the descent together and won with many seconds to spare.

silverpigeon

You missed his ridiculous Black shin length socks too

Wasn't LA famous for wearing long black socks? Yet even more proof for BB - as if he needed it

http://www.mcsilver.net/lostnfound/lance-armstrong-flattens-black-socks-fashion-stigma/

iainf72

Gazzetta67 wrote:

You missed his ridiculous Black shin length socks too.

Everyone knows you wear black socks so you don't get blood seeping through your white socks when you've had needles in your ankles.

ratsbeyfus

No tA Doctor wrote:

This thread is ridiculous on so many levels.

Is this the first year where a good performance in the Dauphine is being taken as a possible sign of dodgy methods, rather than the reverse?

As for comparing pictures of a cyclist to try and assess weight loss, it's one of the most laughable methods I can imagine. Given the variation in cyclist position, kit, lighting, exposure, aperture, colour balance, saturation, contrast etc. it's just stupid. That's without even starting on any selection bias in picking the shots.

Lastly, the Sky training tactics of racing fewer races but racing them seriously is different enough to the training of most other teams to explain the differences between them. Aside from any potential improvements in form the technique might give, if everyone else is riding the Dauphine to train for the TdF and Wiggins/Sky is riding to win it then why on earth would there be any surprise at all that the whole team were performing well?

There's enough doping in the sport still without needing to invent it on the thinnest signs possible.

^ This.

ddraver

Man, I started reading this thread and was thankful that there was finally some intelligent discussion happening on this section again - then I read on! Man oh man! The best bit has to be Bernie telling everyone to use their critical thinking skills and then throwing his clean out of the window and using every logical fallacy and pseudoscientific nonsense in the book!

Sky have invested many a pound into finding out the best and most cutting edge sports science available. Unsurprisingly they are not so keen to broadcast those methods on cyclingnews. When it comes to training cycles there are too many sports that simply can't work on that method to list e.g football, rugby, ice hockey, hockey, tennis, American football, swimming and every other sport that runs over a season. Plus, let's not forget that before the EPO era, racing and winning throughout the year was the norm. If you think Contador only wins in July then I suggest you have a word with one Mr F Fighter. Andy Schleck is constantly criticised for not winning enough throughout the year...Plus, on the flip side it's been mentioned already that sky were a little bit pathetic in the spring classics so maybe that was their "trough" It's also been pointed out that they have nt exactly been racing the cream of the pro peloton but other "wigginses" (riders who have potential, but have nt yet made the jump to the big races).

Brailsford has made a name for himself by acquiring and then implementing the best methods available to athletes. Not what has been done recently by other teams, but what is best. He has shown with the GB track team that this approach works. If Wiggins wins the Tour, there will be teams hammering on the door of sport scientists to find out how they ve done it.

plectrum

Biking Bernie

Dave Brailsford

“....... It’s like the no-needles policy. I think that is absolutely great but how’s it being enforced? I’ve spoken to Pat [McQuaid, UCI president] and I told him the UCI needs to get out here and enforce it. Where are they? They need to be on the buses. There are 20 teams, how hard can it be to have an observer on each bus? That’s your window of opportunity for recovery there, between the finish and the hotel, so get someone on the buses."

Not really the words of a guilty man....

EKIMIKE

They've also spent a lot of money buying up some top notch talent. This is what happens when you have the biggest budget. Why are people surprised about this?

If they were all 6 minutes ahead on GC you could be forgiven for pointing the finger.

plectrum

Dave Brailsford

..... EPO you don’t take it for any other reason than to cheat. In those cases we should be pretty draconian......“I”ve no problem with life bans and jail sentences.

Again not the sort of quote you hear from the likes of Bruyneel etc

BikingBernie

No tA Doctor wrote:

As for comparing pictures of a cyclist to try and assess weight loss, it's one of the most laughable methods I can imagine. Given the variation in cyclist position, kit, lighting, exposure, aperture, colour balance, saturation, contrast etc. it's just stupid. That's without even starting on any selection bias in picking the shots.

Ergo, the picture below cannot be taken as evidence that Wiggins did in fact lose weight. Perhaps it just shows a rider looking a little gaunt due to having finished a hard race, with the dust of the road sitting in the creases of his legs making him look more 'cut' than he otherwise would. Not to mention the effect of the camera angle of course...



One thing is for sure, when Wiggins said that reducing his weight had transformed the way he climbed, claiming that...

One kilogram of body weight over a 30-minute climb is one minute in time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... -de-france

...he was talking rubbish. Fifteen seconds per kg would be closer to the mark, or a minute on a climb like Alpe d'Huez for a 3 kg reduction in weight, not really enough in itself to account for how much he improved.

BikingBernie

plectrum wrote:

Biking Bernie

Dave Brailsford

“....... It’s like the no-needles policy. I think that is absolutely great but how’s it being enforced? I’ve spoken to Pat [McQuaid, UCI president] and I told him the UCI needs to get out here and enforce it. Where are they? They need to be on the buses. There are 20 teams, how hard can it be to have an observer on each bus? That’s your window of opportunity for recovery there, between the finish and the hotel, so get someone on the buses."

Not really the words of a guilty man....

So Brailsford thinks that the 'no needles' policy is not been enforced and as things stand teams can take full advantage of the 'window of opportunity for recovery'. And yet Sky is still beating them. Impressive!

inkyfingers

Why do I keep clicking on this thread??

TMR

inkyfingers wrote:

Why do I keep clicking on this thread??

LOL

finchy

BikingBernie wrote:

plectrum wrote:

Biking Bernie

Dave Brailsford

“....... It’s like the no-needles policy. I think that is absolutely great but how’s it being enforced? I’ve spoken to Pat [McQuaid, UCI president] and I told him the UCI needs to get out here and enforce it. Where are they? They need to be on the buses. There are 20 teams, how hard can it be to have an observer on each bus? That’s your window of opportunity for recovery there, between the finish and the hotel, so get someone on the buses."

Not really the words of a guilty man....

So Brailsford thinks that the 'no needles' policy is not been enforced and as things stand teams can take full advantage of the 'window of opportunity for recovery'. And yet Sky is still beating them. Impressive!

In which case anyone who ever wins a race must also be doped up to the eyeballs. Best stop watching cycling, eh?

No_Ta_Doctor

BikingBernie wrote:

One thing is for sure, when Wiggins said that reducing his weight had transformed the way he climbed, claiming that...

One kilogram of body weight over a 30-minute climb is one minute in time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... -de-france

...he was talking rubbish. Fifteen seconds per kg would be closer to the mark, or a minute on a climb like Alpe d'Huez for a 3 kg reduction in weight, not really enough in itself to account for how much he improved.

Ok, if we concede that you've persuasively demonstrated that Wiggins is pretty much utterly clueless as to the physiology of cycling and basically talk a load of b****** in interviews can you agree that one surprise result in the tour followed by one crap one and then consistent improvement is no indication of doping whatsoever? If you like we can call it a score draw and everyone can go home...

LeicesterLad

BikingBernie wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

As for comparing pictures of a cyclist to try and assess weight loss, it's one of the most laughable methods I can imagine. Given the variation in cyclist position, kit, lighting, exposure, aperture, colour balance, saturation, contrast etc. it's just stupid. That's without even starting on any selection bias in picking the shots.

Ergo, the picture below cannot be taken as evidence that Wiggins did in fact lose weight. Perhaps it just shows a rider looking a little gaunt due to having finished a hard race, with the dust of the road sitting in the creases of his legs making him look more 'cut' than he otherwise would. Not to mention the effect of the camera angle of course...



One thing is for sure, when Wiggins said that reducing his weight had transformed the way he climbed, claiming that...

One kilogram of body weight over a 30-minute climb is one minute in time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... -de-france

...he was talking rubbish. Fifteen seconds per kg would be closer to the mark, or a minute on a climb like Alpe d'Huez for a 3 kg reduction in weight, not really enough in itself to account for how much he improved.

That picture is rancid.

BikingBernie

I know that people get all uppity when they feel that their 'sacred cows' are being challenged, but just to add a little perspective I feel that I should point out, again, that I have not categorically said that Wiggins / Sky are doping. Rather I have said that just because we want to believe in them, this doesn't mean we should accept everything that we are told at face value, as with Wiggin's claim that losing just 1kg will save you a full minute on a 30 minute climb. In fact, I have pointed out on other threads that there isn't the sort of evidence against Wiggins as stands against many other riders. For example:

BikingBernie wrote:

cycling5280 wrote:

Agree to disagree on Armstrong doping. Until he is busted I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Might as well throw Wiggins, Ryder, Cancellara and De Gendt under the bus because they are surprisingly stronger and faster now yet you have no hard proof they doped.

The thing is with the likes of Wiggins is that they haven't had half the people they have worked with, from riders to masseurs to doctors to mechanics all saying that they doped, as is the case with Armstrong. Nor has Epo been found in their samples, as is the case with Armstrong's. Nor has Wiggins had a long term relationship, kept secret for 6 years, with the most notorious doping doctor in the sport, as is the case with Armstrong. etc. etc. etc.

viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12856262&p=17645400

We have also had plenty of posters saying things like "the fact they Sky train in Tenerife proves they are more professional in the way they train than other teams are", "Sky win because that have an impressive set of training techniques", "Sky don't dope because Brailsford once said he would be happy to see life bans for dopers" and so forth, all of which amount to no more than a declaration of faith. I would find it much easier to be a 'true believer', rather than an agnostic, if everything that came out of the Sky camp made sense when subjected to proper scrutiny, and not all of it does!

BikingBernie

No tA Doctor wrote:

Ok, if we concede that you've persuasively demonstrated that Wiggins is pretty much utterly clueless as to the physiology of cycling and basically talk a load of b****** in interviews can you agree that one surprise result in the tour followed by one crap one and then consistent improvement is no indication of doping whatsoever? If you like we can call it a score draw and everyone can go home...

OK, fair enough, one score draw it is. However, one would think that Wiggins would be rather better informed than he appears to be.

ddraver

...except that you re not subjecting it to proper scrutiny - you re just making some scrutiny up and then saying it does nt fit.

We don't have the whole story because Sky do not want everyone using their training methods - deal with it! Plus you are taking the words in a press conference of a man that left school at 16 with, by his own admission, nothing. They are not peer reviewed, published results. What you are doing is exactly analogous to a religious person filling in the gaps in science with god,and you re criticising OUR critical thinking?

There is a difference between Critical thinking and paranoia...

finchy

Bernie - that would be fair enough if you didn't insist on playing this "British" card and accusing other forum users of applying double standards. I shall repeat - the posters on BR tend not to accuse riders of doping unless there is some sort of concrete evidence. This is the same for Wiggins as it is for Evans, Gilbert, Hushovd, Sagan, De Gendt...

Now, would you like to drop your claim that it is Wiggins' British passport is the only thing stopping people questioning his performances?